CITATION:(2019) 6 SCC 162
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.: NO.32601 OF 2018
Introduction:
When Hindu Succession (amendment) Act, 2005 came into force at that time if father was not alive then also daughters will have the coparcenary rights in their father’s property. This case is basically related to the rights of daughters in their father’s property. As after the passing of the judgement there was equal rights in regard to property is given to both son and the daughter. Now the daughters have equal coparcenary rights to inherit the share in father’s property.
Background:
- Section-6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 states that when a male Hindu dies, having an interest in Mitakshara Coparcenary property at the time of his death, his interest in the property shall transfer to the surviving members of the coparcenary by the way of survivorship.
- Earlier daughters were not given the share from her father’s property which was a kind of discrimination between the son and the daughter as they were not given the equal rights in spite of being born by the same parents.
- And there was a violation of Fundamental Rights of the women under A-14 of the Indian Constitution.
- In case of Prakash vs. Phulwati[1], it was said that the Amendment 2005 will apply only if both the father and daughter will alive on the date of commencement of the amendment.
- In case of Danamma v. Amar[2], it was held that if father was not alive at the time of commencement and died in 2001 then daughter can still become a coparcener.
Analysis:
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 has a retrospective effect. In above two cases there was no uniformity and connection as both are saying different things. But from the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma it was clear that daughters will be given the right of coparcener since birth no matter at the time of commencement father was alive or not. This case basically solves the question arises in the earlier cases and removes the discrimination between a son and a daughter. Both should be treated equally because they are the children’s of same parents and that’s why given same rights and liabilities.
Legal ISSUE:
- Whether the Hindu Succession (amendment) Act 2005 giving equal rights to daughters in ancestral property has a retrospective effect or not and whether the daughters will be given the coparcenary rights even when the father was not alive?
- This judgement overruled two observation made in judgements of the Apex Court i.e., Prakash v. Phulwati and Mangammal v. TB Raju.
CASE Laws:
- Mangammal v. TB Raju[3], staking the claim for partition on the basis of amendment made in Tamil Nadu in Hindu Succession Act, 1989. The Apex Court held that the legislature has used the word “the daughter of a coparcener”. Here, the implication of such wordings means both the coparcener as well as daughter should be alive to reap the benefits of this provision at the time of commencement of the Amendment of 1989.
- In the case Danamma v. Amar, Court held that share of the father who died in 2001 would also devolve upon his two daughters who would be entitled to share in the property.
- Court observed that section 6, as amended, stipulates that on and from the commencement of the amended Act, 2005, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her father’s property as the sons have.
- Earlier according to the Hindu Law only son can become a coparcener in his father’s property now after the amendment daughters have also given the same right of coparcener as that of son. The amended provision now statutorily recognizes the rights of coparcener of daughters as well since birth.
Decision By Apex Court:
- The provision contained in substituted section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment as son in the same manner with equal rights and liabilities.
- The Rights can be claimed by daughter born earlier giving the rights not only to daughters born after the amendment but also to those born before that with effect from 09-09-2005 with savings as provided in section-6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004.
- Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 09-09-2005.
Conclusion:
While delivering the judgement in the present case judges did not only see the factual concept of the case but also the present scenario because as per the Indian Constitution also there will be equality of rights and no discrimination on any basis will be there so by following that and keeping in mind the rights and status of women the judgement was delivered answering the most controversial and pending question which have created confusion in the mind of the people. Laws are made for the benefit of citizens and smooth functioning of Government and should also be change or amended with the change in the society for the betterment of the country itself. One should judge man and women on same basis without any discrimination and that’s why given equal rights and liabilities so as to have safe environment and peace in the country.
PLAIGARISM REPORT:
https://searchenginereports.net/view-plag-report/3278ef2ce7a8892ba81fb85541f29525.html
[1] (2016) 1 SCC 549
[2] (2018) 3 SCC 343
[3](2018) SCC Online SC 422
Author Name- RIYA LUHADIA, Designation: Practicing advocate at District and Sessions Court, Jaipur, and Rajasthan High Court
